SPOILER WARNING! This review discusses and/or mentions a few important plot points. If you would prefer not to have these spoiled, please stop reading now and come back once you've seen the film.
Afflicted with a condition which causes sudden and uncontrollable laughter, Arthur Fleck makes his living as a clown, although he aspires to be a stand-up comedian. However, when he is sacked from his job then gets into an altercation with three Wall Street douchebags on the subway, Arthur begins a spiral to becoming... the Joker.
This film was always going to be a tough sell for me. As I've said in previous reviews, I'm not a massive fan of Joaquin Phoenix so the film already had that going against it. Also, I was wary about any kind of origin story for the character, as the Joker always works better as an enigma, an agent of chaos and anarchy, rather than there being a man with a past behind it (the obvious exception to that is The Killing Joke, but even that's not definitive). So, the film had a bit of an uphill climb before it even started. But I suppose director and co-writer Todd Phillips (The Hangover, Due Date) and co-writer Scott Silver should be congratulated. They've done something I never thought possible: they've made the Joker dull.
I'll give Phoenix this: his performance as Arthur/Joker is certainly committed. Losing over 50lbs, his body looks ravaged, angular, and frankly unwell. It's a physical transformation up there with Christian Bale's in The Machinist, and it does make for a striking visual image. But the script is bland, tedious, self-important, and over-reliant on Phoenix's tics and tricks which (had they been used sparingly) would have been more effective. Take the laughter, for instance. The first time you hear it, it's unnerving. Not so much, the fifth or sixth. It loses its impact quickly. Similarly with all the dancing; the first time it happens, it's quite striking (although goes on too long). But that is used and overused to the point of absurdity.
Arthur/Joker describes himself as a "mentally ill loner" but the illness is never specified, and frankly the screenwriters are playing a dangerous game tying mental illness to villainy. Jesus, as if it needs saying, but not everyone with a mental illness is an unhinged obsessive with a streak of sadistic violence lurking just under the surface. See? You've made me go all 'Not all men...' on this issue, Phillips! Similarly, the script goes for the most low-hanging fruit to give some kind of explanation for Arthur's mindset (child abuse), which is frankly insulting. At least they (sort of) undo the 'Arthur-is-Thomas-Wayne's-illegitimate-son' angle which had more than one audience member scoffing with derision (although there's still a maddening hint at the end that it could still be true) and they don't pull a Batman (1989) with having Arthur as the Waynes' killer which looked glaringly like the case at one point.
The main problem I have is that Arthur never feels like the Joker. If you look back at other versions of the character (specifically Heath Ledger and Jack Nicholson), there's a tension, a menace, every time they're on the screen. At any moment, they could erupt into an act of hideous violence then continue as if nothing had happened. That danger makes them enthralling. Not once, never once, did I feel that about Phoenix. There was a hint of it in the final scene when he gets on to Murray Franklin's chat-show, but by that point it was too little too late. Phoenix does a better job at the character than Jared Leto did in Suicide Squad, but if that isn't damning him with faint praise, I don't know what is.
In the press interviews for Joker, one of the main influences that has been talked about a lot is late 70s/early 80s Scorsese, specifically Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, and The King Of Comedy. So it's no surprise that Robert De Niro turns up to try and give the film a bit of legitimacy by having him as talk-show host Murray Franklin who initially mocks Arthur (and even gives him the name 'Joker', although not as a compliment). It's a solid turn by De Niro, but the role of Murray Franklin could have been played by literally any other actor.
Zazie Beetz (Deadpool 2) gets massively underused as Sophie, a nascent love interest for Arthur, but there's a clue from the off that things aren't quite right; when Sophie goes to Arthur's door to ask whether he had been following her to work (because nothing says romance like stalking, am I right?), she decides to forgive him this massively creepy behaviour because he's 'funny'. Frances Conroy- another great character actress- is wasted as Arthur's overbearing mother Penny, although she does get one or two good lines, especially one where she asks Arthur 'don't you have to be funny?' to do stand-up.
The film isn't a complete let-down: there were some bits I liked. The scene where you see why Arthur gets fired (for bringing a gun to a performance at a children's hospital) is well done. I liked Brett Cullen's unexpectedly hard-man turn as Thomas Wayne; Thomas always seems to be presented as a kind of wimpy milquetoast, but here he's got some guts. The Modern Times sequence (where Arthur infiltrates a gala showing of the Chaplin film then confronts Thomas in the men's room) is strong. Plus the sequence towards the end, where he's driven through the rioting streets of Gotham, surveying the madness that he's wrought, is pretty effective. It's just a shame that the 'Kill The Rich'/us-v-them/destroy the 1% now feels a bit like going over old ground; had the film been released a few years ago, say around the time of the Occupy Wall Street movement, it might have felt a bit more relevant.
All said, Joker was a letdown. A few interesting moment shine through amidst the self-indulgent claptrap but they're few and far between. There was no real need for this film to be made at all, and even less need for a sequel. Let this end here. For the love of God, please.
Rating: 2 out of 5
Tez
Joy (Jennifer Lawrence) is a divorced mother of two, who has always wanted to create things. Her parents Rudy (Robert de Niro) and Terry (Virginia Madsen) are divorced and Rudy has just returned to Joy's home after finishing with his latest girlfriend, whilst Terry spends her days watching TV soaps. The only sane person in the house is grandmother Mimi (Diane Ladd) who encourages Joy to pursue her passion. Soon, Joy has a project- a self-wringing mop. Whilst this might not sound like the most gripping premise for a film ever, Joy transcends its traditional and predictable rags-to-riches storyline with a winning performance by the ever-dependable Lawrence in her third collaboration with director David O. Russell (after American Hustle and Silver Linings Playbook).
Russell directed and wrote the script, rewriting a story from Annie Mumolo (Bridesmaids). The film is based in part on the story of Joy Mangaro, a housewife and inventor from Long Island, New York who invented the Miracle Mop. However, Joy's surname is never given in the film and the Miracle Mop is never named as such (except on the QVC screen). So it's not a biopic of Mangaro per se, more a film inspired by her life and story.
Jennifer Lawrence's central performance as Joy is the best thing in the film. She's an unflappable lynchpin against the more outlandish excesses of some of the other characters who are trying to appear quirky but come across as irritating (Madsen especially, who is a terrific actress but has been given a bum role here). And whilst the film follows the tried and true pathway of rags-to-riches- plucky outsider has an idea and succeeds against the odds despite attempts to derail them- Lawrence is never less than watchable, whether negotiating in the boardroom for a shot at getting her mop advertised or dealing with her crazy family. She's been getting some awards recognition which is well deserved.
Robert de Niro's performance is broad but good, and he gets one of the most memorable wedding toasts ever seen on film. Diane Ladd is great in her supporting role as Joy's grandmother and film's narrator. There's a nice supporting turn by Bradley Cooper as QVC executive Neil Walker whom Joy meets whilst trying to get the mop marketed. What's also nice is the temptation is resisted to have Neil as a love interest for Joy. It's made clear very early on that Joy doesn't need a handsome prince to save her.
The script is quite uneven in places, relying on whimsy in place of anything concrete; the soap angle could quite easily be excised from the film with no major structural issues. There's some interesting use of flashback- you see the entire relationship of Joy and Tony's (Edgar Ramirez) relationship from first meeting to signing the divorce papers in about ten minutes flat- but there are elements of telling, not showing which is irking.
Generally speaking, the film is decent enough but it can't decide what it wants to be. It could have been a much more straightforward biopic and been better for it. Still, Lawrence's performance saves it from being totally mediocre.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Tez
Adapted from the 2008 novel by Matthew Quick, David O. Russell's follow-up to The Fighter is a combination of romance, comedy and drama which won the People's Choice Award at the 2012 Toronto International Film Festival and has been a major presence during this year's awards season. Not an easy watch in places, due to subject matter, but it's full of heart and warmth.
After eight months in a Baltimore mental health institution, Pat Solitano Jr (Bradley Cooper) is released to the care of his parents (Robert De Niro and Jacki Weaver) in Philadelphia. Pat's recent diagnosis of bipolar disorder following a violent attack on his wife's lover led to his admission. Now he's out and determined to get better so he can get back with his wife. As he tries to find the silver linings, he meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a girl with troubles of her own. Soon a pact is made; Tiffany will deliver a letter to Pat's wife if Pat will take part in a dance competition with her.
Silver Linings Playbook is the first film in over thirty years to garner an Oscar nomination in each of the four acting categories and that's certainly no fluke. All four main actors- Cooper, Lawrence, de Niro, and Weaver- give naturalistic performances. It's very easy sometimes, especially when dealing with issues like mental illness, for the performances to be very showy, for the actor to almost play up to the cameras as they emote. I didn't feel like there was any of that here.
Cooper shows that he can do more than be a pretty face as his determination to get his wife back and his burgeoning friendship with Tiffany show some real acting chops. Lawrence's performance is mesmerising as the unapologetic but equally as messed-up Tiffany; bizarrely, there is an age difference of nearly fifteen years between Cooper and Lawrence but such is the maturity of her performance that it is not noticeable. De Niro is great as the Philadelphia Eagles obsessed Pat Sr, full of supersititons and borderline OCD whilst Weaver is a warm and engaging presence as the rock who holds things together.
There are other great performances by John Ortiz as Pat Jr's friend Ronnie, Anupam Kher as Pat Jr's counsellor Dr Patel and- I'm surprised to even write these words- a lovely turn by Chris Tucker as Danny, Pat's friend from Baltimore. Usually, Tucker has me gritting my teeth as soon as he opens his mouth but here he's more than bearable and actually kind of likeable.
The portrayal of mental illness is sensitively done but unflinching in their power; they're certainly not sugar-coated or sanitised. Pat Jr's manic episodes are played straight down the line; they're not trivialised or played for laughs which is to the film's credit. Some scenes are difficult to watch, most notably when Pat Jr is looking for his wedding video. The script is decent (Russell adapting Quick's novel himself) with moments of humour subtly weaved in. My only bugbear is the occasional lacklustre direction which lets things down.
You don't need to be a fan of American football to enjoy the film, nor do you need any passion for dancing. Ultimately, it's a touching and occasionally funny film about two damaged souls finding a connection and it's well worth two hours of your time.
Rating: 4 out of 5
Tez
Red Lights is a psychic thriller, written and directed by Rodrigo Cortes. The advertising bills this, somewhat hyperbolically, as 'this year's The Sixth Sense'. Sadly, this film shows about a tenth of that film's style. What you have is a very neat episode of The X-Files hidden amongst a feature-length morass.
Dr Margaret Matheson (Sigourney Weaver) and Dr Tom Buckley (Cillian Murphy) are scientists who spend their lives debunking the paranormal, providing rational explanations for irrational events. However, when reclusive medium Simon Silver (Robert de Niro) emerges from a thirty-year hiatus- after seemingly causing his fiercest critic to die of a heart attack- Tom decides he wants to go after Silver, despite Margaret's warnings. As Tom's investigations proceed, strange things start to happen around him, driving him into a heightened state of paranoia. Is Silver a charlatan? Or does he truly possess paranormal powers? Will you much care by the time the film winds down to the twist ending?
Performances are pretty decent; Cillian Murphy basically carries the film and despite veering into overacting towards the end as the paranoia builds up, is a solid lead. Weaver gives what can best be described as a glorified cameo, but is absolutely great in the role of Tom's mentor. De Niro sadly seems to have turned into a bit of a parody of himself; however, the slightly hammy script does little to help him out. There's decent support from Elizabeth Olsen and Toby Jones in small and slightly thankless parts as a slightly unnecessary love interest for Tom and a professor who believes in the paranormal respectively.
There's a lot being made of the 'twist' (which I won't spoil for those who may want to see it). It doesn't come so far out of left-field as to be truly implausible; you kind of buy it as an explanation even if you don't truly buy into it. It's fairly neat if not exactly original but provides an interesting denouement to a mish-mash of a movie. Theer are some arresting visuals and several very well filmed and presented set-pieces; the investigation of a supposedly haunted house which opens the film and the elaborate take-down of a fraudulent clairvoyant especially stand out.
All said, it's a decent enough movie, hardly groundbreaking but certainly worth a look.
Rating: 3 out of 5
Tez
